This Article takes a first step toward mapping the architecture of marriage regulation in immigration law. It compares immigration law’s regulation of marriage with that of traditional family law in each of the four stages of marriage and considers how immigration law might tell us something impor- tant about how Americans—or at least lawmakers—envision marriage today. The Article provides a taxonomy of reasons why Congress regulates marriage through immigration law and suggests how courts and scholars might determine the legiti- macy of congressional action in this area.

But what if family immigration is actually beneficial to the nation? This Article engages in a thought experiment. It asks: For what reasons might a nation like the United States decide to give an overwhelming number of its admission slots to family members of citizens and permanent residents? In considering this question, it not only looks to the (rather slim) evidence of what Congress actually did consider when enacting these provisions but also speculates more broadly about what the advantages of family-based immigration might be.

Despite being the dominant mode of legal entry for the past two decades in European Union states, the study of family migration has been marginalised theoretically, methodologically and empirically. In settler societies, family migration has been interpreted more loosely and has been encouraged. The definition of who constitutes the family is determined by the state and is generally interpreted in highly restrictive terms in EU states.

This article focuses on contemporary gendered politics of migration and belonging in Britain. The article starts with an examination of migration and the construction of boundaries in Europe and, more specifically, the gendered implications of recent immigration policies (labour, family, asylum) and the gendered nature of the notion of “secure borders” as well as that of “safe haven” in the UK White Paper.